View Single Post
Emu Emu is offline
Level 29 ♂
Emu's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Peoria, IL
Old Jun 10th, 2005, 01:04 PM       
Originally Posted by That site he linked
The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is largely one of degree. Minarchist libertarians wish to reduce the size and intrusiveness of the state, but unlike anarcho-capitalists, retain vital functions that they believe the private sector cannot adequately provide, like police, courts and the military. Anarcho-capitalists believe these should be privately owned, operated and funded.
Even in that paragraph alone you should be able to see the flaw. If the police become privately owned, the owner can make them take down whoever the hell he wants until he becomes the (say it with me kids) government himself. And then there's no more capitalism -- only monopolies, to put it lightly.

Anarcho-capitalists differ from left anarchists in that they do not oppose private property (including private ownership of the means of production), they believe that contractual relationships between employers and employees are voluntary (including profit arrangements), and they are not motivated by egalitarian concerns. According to "mainstream" anarchists, the terms anarcho-capitalist and anarcho-capitalism are contradictions, because they claim capitalism is inherentially hierarchical and as such is opposed to anarchism. Anarcho-capitalists reject mainstream anarchism.
I like how the argument put against that is "Anarcho-capitliasts reject mainstream anarchism." Well, obviously.

Anarcho-capitalism IS a contradiction. It's true that capitalism works "better" with less government, but it doesn't work at all in the absence of it. The government is what sets the definite value of your capital. A dollar is worth the same amount of Ho-Hos no matter where you go. A chicken is not.

And if there IS no government, the capitalist nature of the society will produce one, whether you like it or not.

Anarcho-capitalists oppose coercion, which they (like other libertarians) commonly define as the act of preventing one from having the willful use of their person or property by employing physical force, the threat of such, or fraud. Any action that is made of one's own free will (i.e., not as a result of force or fraud) is considered by anarcho-capitalists to be "voluntary".
More contradictions. You oppose coercion, yet you don't want someone there to stop the coercion. You might say that the police will be there, but what if the person who owns the police is doing the coercion? Then what are you gonna do?

Private property and the idea of self-ownership are central to anarcho-capitalism. As a rule, anarcho-capitalists believe that property is not to be recognized as being legitimately-obtained unless it has been acquired through trade or gift.
In my social studies class, I think they called that "bartering," and it was characteristic of feudal societies.

Anarcho-capitalists recognize that there are few parcels of land left on Earth that have not been coerced from their original possessors (some who may have staked claims millions of years ago), but they do not believe that the past can be remedied by forcefully taking the property from someone today who has acquired it in a consensual transaction.
Why the hell not? It worked for the American settlers.

(Also, agriculture hasn't even existed for "millions of years"...Homo sapiens as a speices hasn't even existed a million years. If that's not a clue, then I don't know what is.)
Reply With Quote